Sunday, November 21, 2010

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) regularly calculates the financial cost of eradicating world hunger. FAO summits encourage rich countries to donate this amount, but for the moment, all countries reply that they do not have so much money –which is an euphemism to reply that, by no stretch of the imagination, are hunger and malnutrition their priorities as governments. Among all kinds of excuses, this is one of the most recurrent: it is a noble objective but it is far beyond our possibilities. Let’s check if this is true.
In the latest World Summit on Food Security held in Rome in November 2009, FAO stated that it would take $44 billion a year to put an end to world hunger. Does it sound like a lot of money? Governments say it does, as they do not have so much money and it is a utopia to think they can ever get such an amount. However, governments do not say that in 2007, the expenditure in arms was more than 30 times greater ($1,340 billion), just to set an example. Or that $44 billion is more or less the budget of Beijing-based Olympic Games of 2008. The only thing necessary to end world hunger is just politicians’ willpower.

Financial balances, therapeutic records, criminal records, and different sorts of actually identifiable data can be shielded with the assistance of this. It is the method for ensuring touchy cardholder PII keeping in mind the end goal to conform to industry benchmarks and government directions. https://goo.gl/I2bx8k